JUDGMENT : 1.Arguments heard. 2.This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (forshort "the Code"), for quashing the judgment dated 24-11-2011 passedby Shri Ahmad Raja, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsinghpur in Criminal Case No. 3400/2010, whereby eachone of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, respectively husband, brother-in-law andmother-in-law of the petitioner, have been convicted and sentenced as under : - Convictedunder Section Sentenced to 498-Aof the IPC undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs .300/- anxhin default, to suffer RI for 1 month. 4of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 undergo RI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs . 500/- and in default, to suffer RI for 1 month. With the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. 3.According to the petitioner, all the disputes prevailing between her and therespondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been settled amicably and therefore, she is notinterested in making them to suffer the sentences. However, the compromiseapplication filed in the corresponding Criminal Appeal No. 221/11 has beenrejected vide order dated 1-2-12 passed by First ASJ, Narsinghpur on the ground thatnone of the offences is compoundable. 4.Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the decision ofthis Court in Kamlakar Mahadevrao Patil Vs. State of M.P., 2004(2) M.P.H.T. 278 , hassubmitted that the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside in thelight of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana , AIR 2003 SC 1386 . But, the fact remains that inB.S. Joshi's case (supra), it was the FIR relating to the offences includingthe one under Section 498-A of the IPC, that was quashed with the observationthat in view of the compromise, chance of an ultimate conviction was bleakwhereas, as pointed out already, in the instant case, the respondent Nos. 2, 3and 4 have already been convicted upon a full trial. 5.Further, the Apex Court in Arvind Harsaul (Dr.) Vs. State of M.P., (2008) 5 SCC 794 , did not interfere with the orderpassed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, rejecting an identical prayer madein almost a similar situation and proceeded to quash the criminal proceedingsin exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction, under Article 142 of theConstitution of India, to do complete justice whereas no such power isavailable to this Court. As an obvious corollary, order of conviction andsentence cannot be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 ofthe-Code. 6.The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. Needless to say that factum of compromise can be taken into account whiledetermining the quantum of sentences, in case the Appellate Court finds theconvictions to be well merited.